Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dwarmin]

I agree with Terenos. Unless your convinced you'll need defensive units soon, don't bother.

[Criptfeind]

I would go with swords men if I was you, you can defend with them, but you can also attack.

I am unsure at this point if light swords men or heavy swords men are the better choice.

[adwarf]

I am also getting them for defense because I have been leaving my territories underdefended, and weak to attack. This way I kill two birds with one stone.

[Taricus]

Heavy, more bonuses from the armoury techs.

[Criptfeind]

I am also getting them for defense because I have been leaving my territories underdefended, and weak to attack. This way I kill two birds with one stone.

Not really. It is more like picking up a stone, throwing it at a bird that you need to attack with a stick (Thus to no effect), then when the bird you need that stone for comes you realize you threw it at the stick bird.

[Iituem]

I am also getting them for defense because I have been leaving my territories underdefended, and weak to attack. This way I kill two birds with one stone.

Swordsmen are designed to be a better all-purpose unit for that sort of thing.  Archers have a heavy defensive slant in the same way axemen have a heavy offensive slant.  As far as infantry are concerned, axemen work best on the attack and archers on the defence, but if you want general purpose units and you want to keep your forces flexible, swordsmen are nearly as good on both attack and defence as axemen and archers.

I've been considering narrowing the Wound Margin further, from 12 to 9.  This would increase the survival chances of heavy units against light units by about 30% (as in, overpowering rather than mutual wounding).

The fun thing about this whole experience is that if I were going to do this type of game again, there are quite a few core mechanics I might do completely differently.  It's the sort of thing I'm taking on board for future game design stuffs.  =P

[Kashyyk]

how about changing it so you have a margin where the victor wounds the loser, but is unwounded themselves.

[Dwarmin]

I would imagine that would very rare in melee. Even a heavy axe unit that stomps over a spearmen unit will take plenty of casualties-thats alot of people to kill.

It should be much more likely with shock units like cavalry, or wholly ranged units like archers.

[Iituem]

how about changing it so you have a margin where the victor wounds the loser, but is unwounded themselves.

I've been considering making kill/wound checks separate, yes.  That way you could end up with neither wounded/both wounded/one wounded/one wounded+one dead/both dead scenarios (though in the first case, it would just cycle the battle until one of the latter conditions happened).

The cheapest way for me to do this (in terms of not changing any stats) would just be to have them do the existing opposition roll twice, once to see if the attacker gets a hit, once to see if the defender gets a hit.  They retain their relative bonuses based on whether they're attacking or defending and it's worked out based on that.  These rolls would then be an Inflict roll vs a Deflect roll, modified by attack/defence position.  If your Inflict roll beats their Deflect roll, you score a wound.  If it exceeds the wound margin (which may go back up again as a result of balance), it's a kill.

A more painful way (in that I might have to consider adding specialist bonuses to more units) but ultimately perhaps better way would be to do this and give units bonuses to surviving and inflicting wounds, separate from their position on the offence/defence.  If I do that, I'll probably change Weaponsmithy and Armoury to favour Inflicting/Deflecting instead of Attack/Defense.

What do we think?

[Criptfeind]

Giving units a 'health' stat?

Hum... I dunno...

[adwarf]

Giving units a 'health' stat?

Hum... I dunno...

I agree with the health stat, and then you could implement the Reinforce aspect into the gaem where you can pay to fix the units HP that turn or wiat for them to heal it themselves.

[CyberGenesis]

Actually, to be lazy...you could just pad the health stat in replace of a fortify bonus.

% increase to HP is basically the same in the system as an increase to defense...unless you have some really precise math involved in the att/def stats

[Taricus]

I'm going to go with CG here.

[Terenos]

I must agree with Cript here. The current situation works. You have methods for people to force wounding or force killing, as they determine. With all things, its shrouded by tech. Tech brings us new options. You could make such determinations for enemy forces as well.
But to do what you suggest, you'd make combat far more complex.

And this is not a necessary complexity. Avoid unnecessary complexity.

[Iituem]

I'm not doing health stats unless I decide to do individual units rather than statistical units.  I'd have to track health for every individual unit, rather than using a wounded/healthy statistic as I currently do.  If I ever switch over to individual unit tracking it will require a major overhaul of the code - at that point I'll probably just rewrite it from scratch.

Doing independent wound/kill checks wouldn't make combat that much more complex.  But I'm undecided, hence why I'm putting that thought out to be considered.